Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby jedrider » Tue 11 Feb 2020, 21:39:30

Yonnipun wrote:There is no man made global warming. Man can not increase the output of the sun.


There you have it: Someone who can exemplify the statement that for every complex problem there is a simple, obvious and WRONG answer.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 12 Feb 2020, 22:39:00

New paper contradicts global warming is bad for the economy. Basically as the globe warms (and it warms asymmetrically - less cooling at night and in winter) we will use less energy to heat our homes and buildings which is a savings that more than offsets the negatives associated with global warming.

This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy.

If this paper’s findings from the empirical energy consumption data are correct, and if the impact functions for the non-energy sectors are correct, then the overall economic impact of global warming would be beneficial.

Contrary to the FUND energy projection for the period 2000–2100, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) [14,15] empirical data appear to indicate that global warming would reduce US energy expenditure and, therefore, contribute positive economic impacts for the USA. The paper infers that the impacts of global warming on the US economy may be indicative of the impacts on the global economy.


https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 13 Feb 2020, 09:44:25

Nice one, jed.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby jedrider » Tue 18 Feb 2020, 01:33:01

A World Without Clouds
https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

Now, new findings reported today in the journal Nature Geoscience make the case that the effects of cloud loss are dramatic enough to explain ancient warming episodes like the PETM — and to precipitate future disaster. Climate physicists at the California Institute of Technology performed a state-of-the-art simulation of stratocumulus clouds, the low-lying, blankety kind that have by far the largest cooling effect on the planet. The simulation revealed a tipping point: a level of warming at which stratocumulus clouds break up altogether. The disappearance occurs when the concentration of CO2 in the simulated atmosphere reaches 1,200 parts per million — a level that fossil fuel burning could push us past in about a century, under “business-as-usual” emissions scenarios. In the simulation, when the tipping point is breached, Earth’s temperature soars 8 degrees Celsius, in addition to the 4 degrees of warming or more caused by the CO2 directly.


The article is almost exactly one year old and I was not familiar with it. Something to think about, that a PETM event can happen again.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby jawagord » Tue 18 Feb 2020, 12:04:31

jedrider wrote:A World Without Clouds
https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

Now, new findings reported today in the journal Nature Geoscience make the case that the effects of cloud loss are dramatic enough to explain ancient warming episodes like the PETM — and to precipitate future disaster. Climate physicists at the California Institute of Technology performed a state-of-the-art simulation of stratocumulus clouds, the low-lying, blankety kind that have by far the largest cooling effect on the planet. The simulation revealed a tipping point: a level of warming at which stratocumulus clouds break up altogether. The disappearance occurs when the concentration of CO2 in the simulated atmosphere reaches 1,200 parts per million — a level that fossil fuel burning could push us past in about a century, under “business-as-usual” emissions scenarios. In the simulation, when the tipping point is breached, Earth’s temperature soars 8 degrees Celsius, in addition to the 4 degrees of warming or more caused by the CO2 directly.


The article is almost exactly one year old and I was not familiar with it. Something to think about, that a PETM event can happen again.


It's unlikely CO2 was the cause of PETM, a large CH4 release is more likely the culprit for abrupt warming. Trying to sift through 56 million years of continental drift can make a lot of scenarios look plausible, just not comparable to the present day.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a remarkable climatic and environmental event that occurred 56 Ma ago and has importance for understanding possible future climate change. The Paleocene–Eocene transition is marked by a rapid temperature rise contemporaneous with a large negative carbon isotope excursion (CIE).

However, the carbon source and quantities of CO2 and CH4 greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming are poorly constrained and highly debated.

A massive release of methane clathrates by thermal dissociation (29) has been the most convincing hypothesis to explain the CIE since it was first identified.

Thus, the present study supports the initial idea of Dickens et al. (29) that massive releases of methane from clathrates caused the positive temperature excursion and the CIE during the PETM, at least to a considerable amount.

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7739
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 18 Feb 2020, 14:48:31

The first pulse may have been from methane, but since methane tends not to have a very long lifetime in the atmosphere, you probably need a carbon dioxide feedback to explain the persistence of the heating.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dissident » Wed 19 Feb 2020, 13:15:35

jedrider wrote:A World Without Clouds
https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

Now, new findings reported today in the journal Nature Geoscience make the case that the effects of cloud loss are dramatic enough to explain ancient warming episodes like the PETM — and to precipitate future disaster. Climate physicists at the California Institute of Technology performed a state-of-the-art simulation of stratocumulus clouds, the low-lying, blankety kind that have by far the largest cooling effect on the planet. The simulation revealed a tipping point: a level of warming at which stratocumulus clouds break up altogether. The disappearance occurs when the concentration of CO2 in the simulated atmosphere reaches 1,200 parts per million — a level that fossil fuel burning could push us past in about a century, under “business-as-usual” emissions scenarios. In the simulation, when the tipping point is breached, Earth’s temperature soars 8 degrees Celsius, in addition to the 4 degrees of warming or more caused by the CO2 directly.


The article is almost exactly one year old and I was not familiar with it. Something to think about, that a PETM event can happen again.


This aspect was discussed on this forum over a year ago unless I am getting senile, but overall awareness of this is pathetically small. Here we see, finally, a cloud feedback. And it is of the wrong sign! So instead of some magical offset as hypothesized by Lindzen, we have basically the worst case scenario, loss of cloud albedo, which accelerates the warming dramatically.

The global warming we are entering is going to be worse than the PETM event. We have an unprecedented rate of warming which give us gifts we really do not want. One of them is the flip of the ocean biochemistry into the reducing anoxic regime that will happen within the next 100 years. An issue that is basically never raised.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 19 Feb 2020, 14:33:40

Thanks for that reminder, dis...I guess... :cry:

Other consequences...the aerosol collapse that Guy talked about as prompting a short-term extinction may be upon us (though I'm pretty sure enough of Guy's other calculations were off by enough that the extinction won't happen quite as rapidly as he predicted):

While the linked article indicates that the coronavirus has temporarily reduced China's CO2 emission by a quarter, the article does not point out that the associated anthropogenic aerosol emission are down by even a larger percentage of Chinese emissions; which might be related to the fact that global mean surface temperature anomalies, GMSTA, have been running unusually high in January and February of 2020, during a non-El Nino season. If so, and if a coronavirus pandemic were to occur then we could see GMSTA temporarily spike in 2020 due to an associated abrupt reduction in global anthropogenic aerosol emissions:

Title: "Analysis: Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-co ... -a-quarter

Extract: "All told, the measures to contain coronavirus have resulted in reductions of 15% to 40% in output across key industrial sectors. This is likely to have wiped out a quarter or more of the country’s CO2 emissions over the past two weeks, the period when activity would normally have resumed after the Chinese new-year holiday."

(Thanks to aslr at asif for text and links)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dissident » Wed 19 Feb 2020, 16:10:06

For sure the aerosol loading change will have regional impact on climate with some remote knock on effects. But we really need a global collapse in anthropogenic aerosol emissions to see a strong global signal. The shutdown of coal plants in the USA, Canada and Europe together with tighter regulations on diesel sulfur content is dragging down sulfate emissions outside China but over a longer time span.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=22

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps ... sessment-3

In the USA the reduction in SO2 emissions (which lead directly to sulfate aerosols) has been huge from 1990 to 2014, about 80%. The reductions in Europe have been similar. But China, India and other parts of the world are still pumping a lot of SO2 into the air.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6353995/

Compared to the USA and Europe, the global SO2 emissions are falling much more slowly thanks to India, East Asia and the rest of the world.

But anthropogenic aerosols are not the only issue. Climate itself is changing the profile of natural emissions including from biomass burning and dust emissions reflecting changes in soil moisture and wind energy. So the signal from human activity changes is being obscured by climate change. But this effect will not stop the warming.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 09 Mar 2020, 15:18:28

Read it and weep

(or, as some of you mo'fo's will doubtless do, laugh )

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-crisis
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 12 Mar 2020, 14:14:23

Well, turns out the denialists were right about one thing, but for the wrong reason: We can't trust the models, but the reason is because the badly UNDER-estimated how fast and how far things would go...

We climate scientists won’t know exactly how the crisis will unfold until it’s too late


...

This long period of stability seems to have ended already. Australia’s climate had been warming rapidly for many decades, and eventually the moment came when record-breaking extreme heat coupled with an exceptionally dry period created the conditions for a series of mega fires.

In all, the fires burned more than 20% of temperate broadleaf forests in New South Wales and Victoria, compared to less than 2% in a typical season. Many of the forests may never recover to their previous state. Other ecosystems may contain similar tipping points.

Predictive models are the lifeblood of climate science, and the foundation upon which political responses to the climate and ecological crisis are often based. But their ability to predict such large-scale disruptive events is severely limited.

For example, the massive scale of the recent Australian bushfires goes beyond what any model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ever simulated – for the present or the future. In fact, one of us (Wolfgang) has published extensively on future wildfires, and his work found that fire activity in parts of south-eastern Australia would likely increase significantly by the late 21st century. In reality, much more widespread fires occurred some 70 years earlier than predicted.

This isn’t the only case where models used by climate scientists are inadequate. The IPCC’s estimates of how much CO₂ we can still emit to be on the safe side explicitly leave out many known large-scale disruptions or tipping points because of insufficient understanding or because models cannot capture them.

One such tipping event, the unravelling and eventual disappearance of the Amazon rainforest, may already be underway. A new study uses model-aided statistical analysis from past ecosystem collapses and comes to the conclusion that, once triggered, Amazon dieback could take as little as 50 years. Because we lack a full understanding of how exactly such a collapse might unfold, such models are not being included in future projections.

The IPCC’s recent report on the oceans and cryosphere (sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets) still doesn’t report the full possible range of sea level rise exacerbated by a possible collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC’s range of 0.3 to 1.1 metres by 2100, dependent on emissions scenario, stays markedly below the worst-case scenario of 2.4 metres which resulted from an analysis of experts’ opinions. Zita Sebesvari, one of the report’s lead authors, has admitted that such a worst case scenario cannot be ruled out.

We know quite well that the climate we are about to create resembles that of millions of years ago, but we are mostly ignorant about how fast this will happen and what it means for humans and ecosystems. Yet scientists rarely point out the uncertainties in their predictions – in particular worst-case scenarios that are beyond the capability of models – and prefer to stick to the conservative but firm conclusions that can be drawn from well-established models.

To discuss highly uncertain but potentially catastrophic outcomes is often seen as political fearmongering. But basing the political response to the climate crisis on a series of safe-looking and – in their totality – apparently certain predictions is therefore painting a wholly inadequate picture of the potential risks that the climate and ecological crises pose to humanity and the biosphere.

...


https://theconversation.com/we-climate- ... ate-133400
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19800
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dissident » Sat 14 Mar 2020, 21:24:02

Predicting fires is something climate models cannot be good at by definition. Just as they are not going to predict local weather in 2100. Fires are complex processes involving soil dehydration and transient temperature spikes that are not resolved by any model (including weather forecast models). Precipitation from even weather forecast models is given as probability distribution since the models cannot resolve convective and cloud microphysical processes. It does not mean that the cloud parameterizations in climate models are totally worthless, it means that their vision is very fuzzy and sort of time and volume average. Fires care about microscopic details which allow them to start.

It really is all about the envelope of atmospheric states and individual atmospheric states. The climate models can be right in terms of the weather state average but wrong since it is a specific weather state that is realized and which forms our reality. So the fail is not as bad as the article makes it sound. If some model managed to get closer to the specific weather state we observed, then it would have made a better fire "forecast".

The above really needs to be made clear to the masses since they knee jerk into bleating that "all models are junk" and "the deniers were right" since they have zero clue about the physics and model simulations involved. The only useful inference from this "fail" is that we need offline fire and agriculture simulations that sample different realizations that reside within the "averaged" results that climate models give. That is just the way it is since we cannot do weather forecasting for 100 years into the future even if we had a God-like observational network and God-like models that can resolve down the nanometer scale. But it's easier just to ignore the problem and pretend it will never bite one in the a**.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby GHung » Sat 14 Mar 2020, 23:21:14

As I've been saying for years, humans would be reducing their recent levels of consumption in due time, though there would be some forcing involved. So here we are.....
It'll be fun to watch CO2 levels drop in the coming months as Coronavirus brings in Springtime. People staying home while the northern hemisphere greens up; maybe a silver lining to all of this.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby derhundistlos » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 08:43:21

Question is what happens to global temps as the aerosol masking effect of airplanes declines by 75+% as the airline industry continues to eliminate flights due to a huge drop in passenger traffic. When I went through Ft. Lauderdale yesterday, the terminal was damn near deserted and the flight status board was a sea of red for canceled flights. The flight from Lauderdale to Chicago was 77% unoccupied seats.
Alone among God’s primates, Man kills for sport and lust and greed. If he's permitted to breed in great numbers, he'll make a desert of his home & yours. For he hath becometh death, the great Destroyer of worlds. ~The Budha~

The good Earth- we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap & lazy ~K. Vonnegut~
derhundistlos
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu 17 Mar 2016, 20:31:48
Location: El Departamento de Antioquia - COLOMBIA

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 08:50:39

That’s a very good question and is a wonderful test of the theories.

The outcome should be very interesting.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15374
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 14:03:53

Newfie wrote:That’s a very good question and is a wonderful test of the theories.

The outcome should be very interesting.


You mean to say that the outcome could be very "disturbing".

It will be interesting and, probably, useful for predictive purposes, regardless.

So far, the weather is very nice. The cold nights are appreciated.

I think that is one outcome as well, that nighttime temperatures also respond to the aerosol effect.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby dissident » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 19:12:40

We are definitely going to see a climate impact. Vast amounts of sulfate aerosol pollution reductions are in progress, this includes aircraft and surface (from transport and industry). So the cloud whitening effect or dimming is reduced. The reduction in aircraft emissions at cruising altitude has a complex impact. It reduces seeding of cirrus, but at the same time reduces the albedo of from contrails.

Compared to 9/11 the emissions impact is over large regions such as China and Europe at the surface. This will produce a noticeable tropospheric cloud albedo impact.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 19:32:04

Yonnipun wrote:There is no man made global warming. Man can not increase the output of the sun.


First, the science shows that the CO2 forcing is more of a factor for warming than solar variance. Counter intuitive as that might be.

Second, that's the type of logic that has people believing that there can be no evolution, because it would piss off God. Or despite the fact that the solar reflectors placed on the moon demonstrate man made objects there (with a little scientific measurement), that man never landed on the moon. Or of course, that the earth is flat, because it intuitively seems that way until you actually start looking a bit, or using science.

This does show me how seriously we should take your other various pronouncements around here though, so thanks for the tip.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 8785
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 19:36:50

Newfie wrote:That’s a very good question and is a wonderful test of the theories.

The outcome should be very interesting.

But that's just one factor. Denialists like to point at one factor in isolation, ignore everything else, and then pretend that warming is a hoax. Even if this sort of thing shows what science expects over the next months or couple years or whatever, I'll bet the denialists will be twisting the results all they can for "reasons".
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 8785
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 22

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 20 Mar 2020, 19:48:16

ROCKMAN wrote:Newfie - Very true especially in a broader LONG TERM sense. Ample evidence proving the earth is in a long term warming cycle. Yes: short term up and down pulses. But on a geologic time scale (IOW 100,000+ thousand year) view warming up. No doubt man's activity is producing a sharp up cycle.

Things may go to shit in 100 years (or less) and much/most of wildlife and plant life won't be able to adapt. But much of mankind will...and 100's of million (if not billions) won't. Would still have happened in thousands (or tens of thousands of years) without man's help.

Yes, but if it had taken, say, thousands of years instead of a couple hundred, the chances of adapting without losing those hundreds of millions or billions of lives would have been MUCH greater.

If people are around when the sun gets warmer/larger in a billion years or so (apparently that number has increased since I checked last time), and the oceans boil away, MAJOR adaption (or leaving) will be required to survive. But again, it's not like that isn't a LONG time coming, leaving a lot of time for planning.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142310.htm

When we do these things to ourselves at breathtaking speed, THEN we're really screwed.

I wish we could know if this pandemic is the likely result of global warming, vs. having to wait around 20 years or so to see if this is the start of a new rapid cycle of such things.

Maybe, just maybe, something this real and this painful would wake far more people up, IF you could convince them that (for example) it's not a liberal conspiracy. :roll:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 8785
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests